I do not have a precise answer, the question is do guns prevent tyranny? I would say they make tyranny extremely hard to implement. Just quoting the second amendment is not good enough, it is a very weak argument.
Cross reference some lines of thought, Quoting Peter Thiel, “The enlightenment has always whitewashed violence”
And the book “The Dictators Handbook”

I look at the second amendment as the right to defend life, liberty and property. No one has the right to limit a person right do so if they've not harmed anyone else.

Everyone has a right to protect themselves, their family and their property. Period. End of story. There is a reason it is second, right behind freedom of speech. The debate is tiresome and moot at this point IMO. Just look at what has happened this year.

bravo! well done girl! Guns once you get to know them are not scary - people are scary - even some of the ones you know!

The 2nd is the thin Red, White and Blue line that communist countries never had and why the citizens were slaughtered there.

No 1st without the 2nd.

What we think of the second amendment and what we think about gun control are two different questions.

While the Supreme Court seems to have gone the self defense route there is nothing in the second amendment about self defense. The right to defend yourself was taken for granted as part of English common law and tradition.

"The Bill of Rights passed after William of Orange
came to the throne in 1689 stated:

By causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law. (Clause 6 of the Bill of
Rights 1690)

That the subjects which are Protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their
conditions, and as allowed by law. (Clause 7 of the Bill of Rights 1690)

There are four points to note. First, Catholics were not thought to have the right to have arms. Second, the clear implication is that Protestants were to be armed to defend themselves Catholics. Third, the very fact that such a clause was included means that the right to weapons was not so much of English life that it was taken for granted."

[englandcalling.wordpress.com]

In the U.S. the right to keep and bear arms is tied to a militia. If the founders had wished to protect self defense or even felt it was necessary they would not have tied weapon ownership to a militia. Obviously they were no just defending the right to keep weapons but also the type of weapons, something common law was murky on. In other words the second amendment defends the right to keep weapons necessary for an effective militia rendering most gun laws are unconstitutional. Why the Supreme Court decide to ignore the obvious comes down to the absurd idea that it is a "living document". Living document is simply a underhanded and deceptive way of saying out of date.

The thing that most people forget is that the civil war didn't start in 1861 it started before the constitution was written. The emphasis on militia is at least in part due to the South's fear of being dominated by a more populace and industrial North. They feared a standing army controlled by a central government and yes slavery was already an issue. Just like states rights the horrible treatment of Blacks is no excuse to ignore the constitution with one exception. The exception being when individual rights are in conflict with majority interests such as when discriminatory laws are enforced by the states.

So we know what the constitution says and it is clear. That doesn't settle the gun control debate. The second amendment is sufficiently vague that how and when bearing arms is allowed is still up to the states. The only thing that is certain is that going the European route where guns are stored in such a way that they are under the control of the central government or state is unconstitutional.

Shooting a weapon for the first time scares lots of people...but it is a fear of the unknown. Once done, people often feel empowered.